SUA Archives

Resolving the Conflict

2013-05-14T20:03:30Z

President Ford responded to those who did not wish to support Coffman Union because they did not feel they would benefit from its construction. He argued that the common good was more important than whether or not one person received direct benefit: "Surely good citizenship in such things does not ask at every turn: 'What do I get out of it?'"[1] The arguments against the union were not based on opposition to the philosophical idea of a student union as a central meeting place at a university, but to its cost if it meant raising fees.

Gopher, no. 53, 1940, , Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

At least in the Minnesota Daily, the dissident voices temporarily succeeded in drowning out those who supported Coffman Union, although it is difficult to know from a few articles and a number of letters to the editor how the majority of the student population felt. There must have been support among many students, as almost 1200 students were recruited to work on the union fund. Each student was assigned eight or ten other students with whom he or she spoke about the fund drive for the new union.[2] Ultimately, the protest of the new union did lead to a few positive changes: the men's and women's lounges were changed from two stories to one to save space, a bookstore was guaranteed and the cafeteria prices were not raised.[3]. The changes did not alter the cost of the building, but seem to have placated the opposition nonetheless.[4]

___________________________________________________________________
[1] "Ford Answers Protest on Union," Minnesota Daily, February 16, 1939.
[2] "1200 Students Are Enlisted in a Drive for a New Union," Minnesota Union, February 15, 1939.
[3] "Union Plans Began 25 Years Ago," Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1940.
[4] See "New Union," Gopher, no. 53, (1940), 165.
http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/664761
This piece alludes to the conflict over the union. I have not been able to find information as to how the Jacobin club and others came around.

Conflict over the New Union Part II

2013-05-08T18:47:21Z

During February 1939 controversy regarding Coffman Union raged in the pages of Minnesota Daily. Some students suggested that they would be happy to have a new union, so long as there were no $2 per quarter increase in fees.[1] Others suggested that $2,000,000 was an extravagant amount to spend, arbitrarily suggesting solutions such as spending half that for a less beautiful building.[2] Another proposed idea was to use the PWA money for other purposes, such as new labs.[3] Some students complained that they would not get their money's worth out of the new building and were opposed for that reason.[4]

Farm Union, c. 1940s, Burton M. Atkinson Archives

Students who spent most of their time on the St. Paul campus, then known as the Ag Campus, were upset with having their fees raised to support Coffman Union, given how inadequate their union was. [5] Ray Higgins, director of the Minnesota Union, pointed out that the majority of union dues paid by students on the Ag Campus went towards improving their facilities.[6] The Ag Union was improved with $24,000 that came from the government and Union and Shevlin fees. The remodeled Ag Union was designed to be used by both men and women and opened in November, 1939, [7] about eleven months before Coffman Memorial Union.

_________________________________________________________________
[1]For example, see, "Over the Back Fence," Minnesota Daily, February 10, 1939, 4. $2 is equivalent to approximately $30 in 2013 dollars, which would mean an increase equivalent to $120 per year.
Also see: Rod Lawson, "Progressive Oppose Any Fee Increase," Minnesota Daily, February 11, 1939, 2.
[2] Joe Brochin, "He's for 'Better Boondoggling," Minnesota Daily, February 10, 1939, 4
[3] N.B., "Use New Union Money for Labs, He Pleads," Minnesota Daily, February 10, 1939, 4.
[4] Leroy Day, "Didn't Get Money out of Old Union," Minnesota Daily, February 10, 1939, 4
[5] Alton Finstad, "Not Fair to Ag Campus, He Says of New Union," Minnesota Daily, February 10, 1939, 4
"Two Petitions, Resolution Opposes Construction Plans," Minnesota Daily, February 15, 1939, 1.
[6] "Higgins Defends Ag Fee Raise: Says Funds will go for Ag Facilities," Minnesota Daily, February 15, 2.
[7] "Ag Union May Prove a Model," Minnesota Daily, 12.

Conflict over the New Union

2013-04-25T16:00:22Z

In 1939, the Jacobin Club, which was an academic fraternity, wrote a 1500 word letter to the Board of Governors calling for a complete revision of the plans for Coffman Memorial Union, including a location change and slashing the cost of the union by two-thirds.[1] They argued that the new location was inconvenient for the majority of the student body and that it would make more sense to build a smaller building near the original union and Shevlin Hall and continue to make use of both older student buildings. The Jacobin Club was opposed to amenities such as a bowling alley and a "grandiose dance hall," and also felt that insufficient space was allocated to students in the new plan, pointing out that reading and study rooms were not provided. They also criticized the amount of dining space, as it was no larger than the Union's cafeteria, which was already over-capacity.[2]

Aerial view of the University of Minnesota, 1930, Photograph Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

The Jacobin club criticized the cost of the new union, arguing against raising student fees, particularly because three floors of the building were allocated for faculty use. They also suggested that a union as the "center of student life" was not needed, as that 60 percent of the student body lived off campus and that: "Comparison of the facilities of Minnesota with those of such places as Iowa City and Ann Arbor are fallacious, for in those places large universities are located in small towns, and almost all undergraduate life is necessarily centered on the campus."[3] Of course, the purpose of a union was not just to provide a space for students, but to help students become participants in university life, and, presumably, to foster connections between students who commuted and lived on campus.

____________________________________________________________________
[1]"Jacobins Request Change in Site of New Edifice," Minnesota Daily, February 7, 1939, 1.
[2] Ibid., 3
[3] Ibid.
[4]"Union Building are Essential," Minnesota Alumni Association, April 1, 1939, 4.

Naming and Construction of Coffman Memorial Union

2013-04-17T18:25:37Z

Lotus Delta Coffman, 1938, Photograph Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

In early 1939, President Guy Stanton Ford announced that the new Minnesota Union would be named Coffman Memorial Union after President Lotus Delta Coffman[1] who unfortunately died in office in on September 22, 1938.[2] During his tenure, Coffman fought to have a new union constructed. He had insisted that the new union be large enough to meet the needs of the University, rather than construct an insufficient building and be compelled to make expensive additions later.[3] On April 6, 1936, Coffman wrote in a letter: "Someday the University of Minnesota will have a Student Union as the center of its social life."[4]

Architect's Sketch of Coffman Memorial Union, December 3, 1938, Minnesota Alumni Weekly, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

Tentative plans for the new Union were presented to the Union Board of Governors in November, 1938[5] and Construction for Coffman Memorial Union started in January, 1939.[6] The new Union was to include all of the features of the original Minnesota Union, plus a 200-car garage, post office, terrace and men's and women's lounges.[7] The new Union over twice as large as Minnesota Union (Nicholson Hall) and Shevlin Hall combined.[8] The architect's sketch shown above provided the first view of what the new Union was to look like.

_____________________________________________________________________
[1]"Union to be Coffman Memorial," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, March 4, 1939, 383.
[2]"Death Takes Dr. Coffman," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, October 1, 1938, 4.
[3]"Union to be Coffman Memorial," 383.
[4] See: "Late President L. D. Coffman Stated," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, April 1, 1939, 3.
See Also: Fred B. Snyder, "Acceptance of Coffman Memorial Union," Speech at Dedicatory Exercises for Coffman Memorial Union, Friday, October 25, 1940. Retrieved from: "Summary of Historical Data: Coffman Memorial Union Dedication, October 25, 1940," President's Office (box 8 of 449), Coffman (Remarks About Him), Jan. 1939- July 1951.
[5]"Union Campaign," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, October 22, 1938, 129.
[6] "New Union Plans are Studied," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, November 5, 1938, 158.
[7]"Space in Union," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, February 25, 1939, 368. Shevlin Hall was 27,00 square feet and the Union was 72,616 (combined 99,616 square feet). The new building was to be 234,588 square feet.
[8] "Union Campaign," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, December 3, 1938, 226.

The Need for a New Union

2013-04-02T15:18:02Z

Students in the Minnesota Union, 1930s, Berton M. Atkinson Archives

By the time that the Minnesota Union became open to women in 1934, there was talk of building a coeducational student union such as those of Wisconsin and Iowa.[1] Laura Thompson Shafer (Class of 1898) wrote of men and women students: "Their interests are not separated and their activities both overlap and are shared." [2] If the new building had been built in the early 1930s, as had been the original hope, it would not have been coeducational. [3]

Common Peepul's Ball, February 11, 1937, Berton M. Atkinson Archives

In the 1935-36 academic year students and faculty brought their request for a new building to President Coffman, who appointed a survey committee in July, 1936. In November, the Alumni Board and Alumni Advisory Committee unanimously decided Shevlin Hall no longer met the needs of the women students and the Minnesota Union lagged behind other Midwestern institutions. In December, 1936 the Board of Regents approved the construction of a new union, but in 1937 the initial plan for federal funds was denied.[4] In 1938, the University of Minnesota received a grant from the federal government that would fund about 45% of the new building, [5] which was to cost a total of $2,000,000.[6]

__________________________________________________________________
[1] Laura Shafer Thompson, "Shevlin Hall," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, November 3, 1934, 147. Thompson's description of Shevlin Hall is rather rhapsodic (with a couple of factual errors), but it describes how important Shevlin Hall was. She explains how both Shevlin Hall and Minnesota Union were being used by both men and women.
[2] Ibid.
[3] "It's for the Women, Too." Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1940, 7.
[4] E.B. Pierce "Union Building," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, December 18, 1937.
[5] "University to Have New Union Building," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, September 24, 1938
[6] "Union Campaign," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, October 22, 1938

Women in the Minnesota Union

2013-03-26T15:47:30Z

Studying in the Minnesota Union, c. 1934-1939, Berton M. Atkinson Archive

The decision to allow women to enter the Union in 1934 increased the need for a new building. Previously, women sometimes were allowed in the Union, but only for special events or with "previous written permission." [1] In 1934, the National Youth Administration (NYA) plan was adopted. [2] Instead of paying student workers, they were provided with meals and the Union was the best location.[3] The Minnesota Union also drew more women as Shevlin Hall cut down on its services in order to save money: "The result of the change is that our men students are losing priority rights at the Union." [4]

Minnesota Union, 1930s, Berton M. Atkinson Archive

Although women were now allowed in the Minnesota Union, not all activities and spaces were open to them. For example, in 1936, a roller skating party was held, but only for men, as: "This form of exercise is a masculine sport. . . ." [5] Likewise, the billiards and smoking rooms were not open to women,[6] although one room in Shevlin Hall was converted into a smoking room for women, suggesting that the rules were beginning to shift regarding appropriate activities for women. [7]

Billiards Room, n.d., Minnesota Union, the Berton M. Atkinson Archive

__________________________________________________________________
[1] "It's for the Women, Too." Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1940, 7.
[2] The NYA plan was part of the New Deal.
[3] "It's for the Women, Too."
[4] Vera Schwenk, "Notes on Minnesota Women," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, November 13, 1937, 188. This commentary is not necessarily a criticism of women using the Minnesota Union, but speaks to the importance of a new building.
[5] "Campus Diary," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, February 1, 1936. However, photos from the Burton M. Atkinson collection demonstrate that by the 1940s, at the latest, roller skating had become a coeducational activity.
[6] Vera Schwenk, "Notes on Minnesota Women."
[7] Vera Schwenk, "Speaking of Co-eds," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, November 27, 1937, 220.

Minnesota Union in the 1930s

2013-03-18T14:36:27Z

It was apparent from the beginning that the Old Chemistry Building was not really an adequate space for the Minnesota Union, especially given that the University was bound to continue expanding.[1] In 1914, when the Minnesota Union opened, there were around 4,000 students on campus, but by 1936 there were 14,000.[2]

Minnesota Union, Spanish Room, c. 1933, Photograph Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

In the 1920s, the hope was to launch a campaign among students, faculty and alumni, but the crash of 1929 slowed down the possibility of a new building. Instead, in 1932 $35,000 was allocated to rearrange parts of the building, improve the private dining rooms and generally make the building more functional. Describing the changes, E. B. Pierce wrote: "For the first time in its history, the Union Building is attractive as a men's club house and will be serviceable as it stands for a number of years to come." [3] The Spanish Room, pictured above, is an example of the improvements.

Minnesota Union, Cafeteria, 1933, Photograph Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

However, the improvements to the building simply were not sufficient and by the mid-1930s students were agitating for a new student union. Even the attic, originally used as a storehouse, had been made over to be utilized as a lunch room. There was a suggestion for a new union to be built adjacent to Folwell Hall, which would have been connected to the armory,[4] although that plan was abandoned for the current location of Coffman Memorial Union.

Minnesota Union, no date, Berton M. Atkinson Archive

___________________________________________________________________
[1] Doug Lyness, "Union Plans Began 25 Years Ago," Minnesota Daily, October 4, 1940, 3.
[2]"Students Petition for New Union," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, November 21, 1936, 192.
[3]"The Union at Minnesota," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 6, 1933, 471.
[4] "Some Opening Remarks," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, January 11, 1936, 279.

Minnesota Union and Shevlin Hall in the 1920s

2013-03-01T20:10:08Z

Minnesota Union (Nicholson Hall), c. 1924, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

By around 1920, Minnesota Union had two branches: The main branch in the building now known as Nicholson Hall and the auxiliary branch at the Farm Union.[1] Likewise as of 1918, the women had Shevlin Hall and the Home Economics building in St. Paul.[2] The yearbooks from the 1920s demonstrate that both the Minnesota Union and Shevlin Hall were central to student life.

Shevlin Hall, February 20, 1926, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

In addition to a place to get meals, rest and study, Shevlin Hall provided social spaces for women where they could spend time with one another and develop skills as hostesses.[3]

Minnesota Union (Nicholson Hall), 1926, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

Billiards Room, no date, Minnesota Union (Nicholson Hall), Berton M. Atkinson Archives

The Minnesota Union included other amenities as well beyond those available at Shevlin Hall, although by 1917 Shevlin Hall did have a tunnel connecting it to the women's gymnasium.[4] Like a gentlemen's club, the Minnesota Union included a smoking room, game rooms and two billiards rooms.[5] There were similarities, such as places to eat, study and host dances, between Shevlin Hall and the Minnesota Union, but they were described differently: Shevlin was seen as a safe space for women, while the Union was modeled after gentlemen's clubs.[6]

Dance, Minnesota Union, Gopher, vol. 35, 1922, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesta

___________________________________________________________________
[1] Gopher, no. 34, (1921), 530
umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567843/583090?mode=basic
[2] "The Expansion of Home Economic," Gopher¸ no. 32, (1918), 100 http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567840/580966?mode=basic
[3]Ada Comstock. "What the Building Means," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, March 21 1910, 4. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53313/1/umaaMag-009_4.pdf
http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567839/580416?mode=basic
[4]Dr. Anna J. Norris, "The Women's Gymnasium," Gopher, no. 30 (1917), 230-231.
http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567839/580416?mode=basic
[5] Gopher, no. 34, (1921), 530-531
http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567843
[6] Gopher, no. 34, (1921), 530, See the Minnesota (Men's) Union Scrapbook, Burton M. Atkinson Archive for letters exchanged between the Harvard and Minnesota Unions. The Harvard Union was modeled after gentleman's clubs and was a space where men who were unable to join the elite clubs at Harvard could congregate: "FDR and Harvard's First Great Social Experiment: The Union," The FDR Suite Restoration Project @ Adams House (blog), August 22, 2009. http://fdrsuite.org/blog/?p=216

Farm Union

2013-02-13T16:13:45Z

Coffey Hall (known as the Administration Building), 1912, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

In 1916, the Minnesota Union Board of Governors ratified an amendment to their constitution in support for establishing a branch of the Minnesota Union at the Ag Campus in St. Paul.[1] It opened around 1920 and was housed in the Administration Building,[2] which currently is known as Coffey Hall. Members paid the same fees as men on the Minneapolis campus and were able to utilize both unions.[3] The hope was to build a new union on the agricultural campus, [4] although it took years for the union to occupy its own space and a new building was not constructed until 1959.[6]

Old Dairy Hall, 1918, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

In 1925 Minnesota Union was given a room in Old Dairy Hall.[7] Old Dairy Hall transitioned into the Farm Union gradually, starting with the ground floor.[8] Initially, the Farm Union remained open only to men, but women had a space similar to Shevlin Hall in the Home Economics building.[9] The Farm Union became coeducational in 1938, which increased the need for a larger space.[10]

____________________________________________________________________
[1]Bob O'Kieffe, "Dairy Hall Conversion Continues," Minnesota Daily, August 3, 1948, 1. Retrieved from: Building- St. Paul, Old Dairy Hall, University of Minnesota Archives.
[2]Gopher, no. 34, (1921), 531, umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567843/583090?mode=basic
[3] Ibid.
[4] "Union Plans Agricultural Expansion," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, Tuesday April 24, 1923, 441.
[5] Bob O'Kieffe, "Dairy Hall Conversion Continues," 1
[6] "History of Student Unions & Activities," http://sua.umn.edu/about/history
[7] Retrieved From: Buildings, St. Paul, Old Dairy Hall, University of Minnesota Archives.
[8] "Dairy Hall Conversion Continues," Minnesota Daily, August 3, 1948, 1
[9] "The Expansion of Home Economics," Gopher¸ no. 32, (1918), 100 http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567840/580966?mode=basic
[10] Bob O'Kieffe "Dairy Hall Conversion Continues"

The Minnesota Union

2013-01-23T17:41:04Z

Gopher, vol. 29, 1916, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

Although there was widespread support for the men's building, it took several years for the university to provide a building for the men. The Minnesota Union, which opened in 1914, took some time for the building to be fully functional.[1] Although the idea for a men's building dates back to at least 1907 and may have been originated by a woman,[2] the 1916 Gopher claims that the idea dates to 1908.[3] In 1909, the Minnesota Union hosted the first Campus Carnival, which was a benefit that raised money for the construction of the men's building.[4]

Gopher, vol. 29, 1916, Courtesy of University Archives

The original plan to have a new building never came to fruition. Instead, in Fall of 1913 the Board of Regents decided to appropriate and remodel the old Chemistry Building at the fraction of the cost to construct a new building. The Board of Governors had hoped for a grand new structure, but decided that the Chemistry Building would make a "fine Union structure."[5] The building later was renamed Nicholson Hall, but as of 1914, it was the Minnesota Union.

____________________________________________________________________
[1]See: "Lunches at Minnesota Union Building," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, September 21, 1914. 5.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53391/1/umaaMag-014_1.pdf
It is unclear exactly when the building became fully functional, but according to the 1916 Gopher it took some time to furnish. According to the October 17, 1931 issue of the Minnesota Alumni Weekly, the Minnesota Union formally opened for the Homecoming dance in the Fall of 1914.
[2] "Dean Ada Comstock Speaks up for Girls and Professor Potter Takes up Cudgel for Men at Faculty Banquet," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 20, 1907, 11-12.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53298/1/umaaMag-006_6.pdf
[3] Sigurd Ueland, "The Minnesota Unio," Gopher, no. 29 (1916), 156
https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567838/579629?mode=basic
Granted, there is, if only semantically, a difference between a men's building and a men's union. The former was conceived of first, although the terms "Minnesota Union" and "men's building" were used interchangeably once the Minnesota Union was conceived of.
[4] Ibid. 156. The Minnesota (Men's) Union scrapbook, which is held in the Atkinson Collection contains an original program.
[5] Ibid. 156-157.

"No Better than a Mob": Arguments for a Men's Building

2013-01-16T18:55:13Z

It is unclear who originated the idea of a men's building, but it may not have been the men students themselves. The arguments used by two prominent women at the university suggested that they thought men were more poorly socialized than women and that a men's building could help men become better members of society. In spring of 1907, prior to the formation of the Minnesota Union in 1908, Professor Frances Squire Potter spoke at a faculty banquet and argued that a men's building would contribute to men's development. She expressed concern that American culture was being "left to the mercies of the women," while men were "in danger of being absorbed into commercialism and politics."[1]

Campus View, Minneapolis Campus, 1905, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

Later, Professor Ada Comstock, who was Dean of Women and a major proponent of Shevlin Hall, wrote of the importance of a men's building. She spoke of how necessary Shevlin Hall was to the health and development of the young women of the University, but that the men needed their own building more than women ever had, suggesting that women had many advantages over men. For example, she wrote: "A girl is exposed to few temptations: a boy, to many" and she described the men at the University of Minnesota as "hardly better than a mob."[2] Her argument that the men resembled a mob may have been rhetorical and stated mostly to contrast the benefits of a women's building to the lack of a men's building, but it certainly is reflective of contemporary views of masculinity and femininity. Unsurprisingly, when the men began to agitate for a building, their argument differed somewhat from Comstock's.

____________________________________________________________________
[1]"Dean Ada Comstock Speaks up for Girls and Professor Potter Takes up Cudgel for Men at Faculty Banquet," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 20, 1907, 11-12.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53298/1/umaaMag-006_6.pdf
[2]Ada Comstock, "What the Building Means," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, March 21, 1910. 4-5 https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53313/1/umaaMag-009_4.pdf

Men's Building

2012-12-14T22:37:45Z

Newspaper clipping of proposed Men's Building, c. 1910, Minnesota (Men's) Union Scrapbook, Berton M. Atkinson Archives

While the movement for a women's building has been associated with the union movement, Shevlin Hall was not described as union. However, the opening of Shevlin Hall did help spur men at the university to action and the men formed the Minnesota Union in 1908.[1] By May 1908 men at the University of Minnesota had raised $30,000 and drafted a constitution pledging to raise money for building the Minnesota Union, which would represent all of the men at the University of Minnesota.[2] The Board of Governors was established with the drafting of the constitution. [3]

Gopher, vol. 23, 1910, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

The original hope was to have a new building constructed that would house the Union at a cost of $250,000.[4] In general, the argument provided in the Minnesota Alumni Weekly was that men needed a place where they could get a wholesome meal and a space that would provide camaraderie. It was seen as necessary for men to develop as members of the university community: According to President Northrop: "It would be one of the most effective contributes which it is possible for them to make for it would tell mightily on the habits, and manners, and character of the men of the University and its influence would be as prolonged as Eternity." The Board of Regents recommended that the state provide $150,000 toward the construction of the building [5].

___________________________________________________________________
[1]Minnesota (Men's) Union Scrapbook, Burton M. Atkinson Archive.
[2]"The Minnesota Union Formed," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 11, 1908, 9.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53303/1/umaaMag-007_5.pdf
[3]"Constitution of the Minnesota Union," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 11, 1908, 9-10.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53303/1/umaaMag-007_5.pdf
[4]"The Minnesota Union Building," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 3, 1909, 5.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53308/1/umaaMag-008_6.pdf
[5]"Men's Building," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, January 28, 1911, 15-17.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53318/1/umaaMag-010_3.pdf

Origins of Student Unions

2012-12-04T18:39:05Z

Cambridge Union Society

In The College Union Idea, Porter Butts somewhat tenuously links debating societies known as unions to the idea of student unions, which are a place for all of the student body to congregate.[1] The first "student union" organization was founded at Cambridge University in 1815 and was actually a debating society named for the "union" of three debate societies.[2] Originally, the union had no building and meetings took place in a tavern. They established their own space in 1832 and moved into their current building in 1866.[3] Oxford University was the second university to establish a union, in 1823 and was founded as a debate forum.[4] However, both Cambridge Union Society and Oxford Union Society were actually debate societies and are not to be confused with the Cambridge University Students' Union and Oxford University Student Union, respectively.

Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Detroit Publishing Company Collection, c. 1900-1910

Harvard Union was organized in 1832 and was also a debate society rather than a representative student union.[5] By the late nineteenth century Harvard Union resembled a gentleman's club.[6] It seems that even in 1901 there was some disagreement as to whether or not the proposed student union at Harvard had stemmed from the identically named debating society/ club.[7] The Union at Harvard University opened in 1901 and was meant to be a space where students who were not part of the elite clubs could congregate. Membership was open to all [8] --meaning men, as Harvard was not fully coeducational until 1977 when Harvard University and Radcliffe College merged. The first student union building in the United States was Houston Hall, which opened in 1896 at the University of Pennsylvania.[9] Houston Hall was the first building constructed in order to provide common ground for all students at the university.[10]

_______________________________________________________________
[1] Porter Butts, The College Union Idea, Stanford California: Association of College Unions International, 1971, 8-10.
[2] "History of the Union," The Cambridge Union Society, accessed December 4, 2012. http://www.cus.org/about/history-union
[3] "Our Building," The Cambridge Union Society, accessed December 4, 2012. http://www.cus.org/about/our-building
[4] "About the Union," The Oxford Union, accessed December 4, 2012. http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us
[5] "The Harvard Union," The Harvard Crimson, (Cambridge, MA), October 9, 1888. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1888/10/9/the-harvard-union-the-organization-of/
[6] "The Role of College Unions," CAS Self-Assessment Guide for College Unions, accessed December 4, 2012 https://spa2010.itap.purdue.edu/ssta/vpsa/analyst/CAS/Shared%20Documents/CAS%20Documents/College%20Unions.pdf
[7] Charles Grilk, "Communication [Letter to the Editor]," Harvard Illustrated Magazine, December 1901, 77.
[8] "FDR and Harvard's First Great Social Experiment: The Union," The FDR Suite Restoration Project @ Adams House (blog), August 22, 2009. http://fdrsuite.org/blog/?p=216
[9] "Houston Hall: Who says you can't teach an old building new tricks?" Perelman Quadrangle, Accessed December 4, 2012. http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/perelmanquad/houston-hall.php
[10] "The Role of College Unions," CAS Self-Assessment Guide for College Unions.

Paint the Bridge

2012-11-19T20:09:00Z

Artist's rendering of the Washington Avenue Bridge, Alumni News, October 1965, Courtesy of University Archives

While Paint the Bridge dates back to the early 1990s, there were previous attempts to make the walkways on the Washington Avenue Bridge more hospitable to students, none of which have been as successful. The Washington Avenue bridge opened on October 4, 1965, replacing a bridge that had been built in a slightly different location in 1885. Once the old bridge began to sway in the wind its safety had become questionable. Yet, it took years for the original bridge, which lacked a covered walkway, to be replaced.

Artist's rendering of the interior of the Gallery, Alumni News, October 1965, Courtesy of University Archives

The architect, Winston Close, had grand plans for the bridge and thought that the bridge would be known throughout the world as an exemplary bridge design. There were high hopes in particular for the walkway, or the Gallery, as it was originally known. The goal was to include restaurants, ticket booths, a bookstore and art galleries, but the bridge would not have been able to handle the additional weight. However, the university did hold events on the bridge, and the first event was a sale of student art works in May, 1968.

Paint the Bridge, 2010

The plans to make the walkway a gathering place for students never flourished and the bridge and the walkway were neglected. As of 1986, the U planned to paint the interior of the walkway bright colors to make it more welcoming. Although there are some reports that Paint the Bridge started in 1990 or 1991, the first reference I found in the Minnesota Daily was from April, 1993. Students were able to paint environmentally inspired murals. As of 1994, Paint the Bridge has taken place in September and originally was open to both students and alumni. In 1996, The University Community Building Project and the Office of Student Activities merged to form the Campus Involvement Center. Currently, Paint the Bridge is run by the Student Activities Office and continues to provide registered student groups a chance to express themselves, highlight their group, and improve the ambiance of the walkway.

Paint the Bridge, 2010

Let no man enter here

2012-11-05T15:49:58Z

Gopher, vol. 21, 1908, 321, Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota

Shevlin Hall gave women students at the university autonomy over their lives, but it also served to monitor their behavior. During the early twentieth century expectations for how a young woman should behave differed greatly from how a young man was expected to behave. Shevlin Hall gave women a space where they could socialize without jeopardizing their reputations. Yet, it also it meant that there was more oversight regarding how they used their time.[1] Young women were observed by the Dean of Women, the House Matron Mrs. Ladd (who later became Dean of Women from 1919-1923), and by one another.[2] They also were a source of curiosity to the men attending the university who wondered what occupied the women in their shared space.[3]

Gopher vol. 23, 1910, 458 Courtesy of University Archives, University of Minnesota
Click here to link to larger image

While much of the discourse around Shevlin Hall spoke of how important a women's building was, there were some jokes about Shevlin Hall written from the perspective of men who were not allowed to enter the hallowed halls without permission. For example, the 1908 Gopher includes a satiric play depicting the fate of a young man who dares to enter the building without prior approval. The young women, having organized themselves into a union, have become rather militant and instituted very strict rules.[4] However, in reality, each woman was allowed to use the building to entertain men a limited number of times throughout the year, so men were allowed to enter under certain circumstances. Women also were allowed to invite men to parties with more than twenty women present, as long as at least one woman had not already entertained men three times that year. In addition, various events were held in Shevlin Hall that were open to both women and men.[5] Presumably, however, men were only allowed in certain areas of the building.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] Ada Comstock. "What the Building Means," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, March 21 1910, 4. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53313/1/umaaMag-009_4.pdf
[2] See: Ada Comstock. "What the Building Means," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, March 21 1910, 4. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53313/1/umaaMag-009_4.pdf
[3] Ibid., See, Also: "Matron of Alice Shevlin Hall," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, September 17, 1906.
[4] See, for example: "Cross Section of Alice Shevlin Hall," Gopher, no. 23 (1910), 468. "The Only Man: A Drama," Gopher, no. 21 (1908), 349-351.
http://umedia.lib.umn.edu/node/567830/575508?mode=basic
[5] "The Year in S. G. A.," Minnesota Alumni Weekly, May 9, 1910, 7.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/53314/1/umaaMag-009_5.pdf